[Businessmtg] DISTRICTS (and Area, too.)

[Jerry]

Hi,all,

...What he said...

Jerry
-


On January 13, 2024, at 7:07 PM, Steve Rankin via Businessmtg <businessmtg at asp-afg.org> wrote:

Hi folks,

EMPHASIS ADDED.  Since the server does not allow any of the usual means of adding emphasis (bold, underline, italic) I will use all caps.  I'm not yelling, OK?  😊

As usual, what goes on in Jerry's noggin' is pretty much spot on.

MOMENTUM.  

Jerry talked about how our " service structures get headed in a certain direction it's hard to get them to redirect themselves".  This is called momentum.  It's not just Al-Anon service structures, but organizations and the people in leadership that prefer maintaining the status quo over change.  In fact, it's a well-known character trait of the battered woman who will often choose to stay in her warm pile of shit than risk the unknown by breaking out and leaving.  Trust me, I understand that as the husband that chose to continue trying to save the marriage, even after his wife was in her fifth affair in 13 years.  Duh.  

Back in January 1996, the Board of Trustees for the Al-Anon Family Groups Headquarters, Inc. authorized a three-year pilot project to list on-line meetings as electronic meetings.  As Ric B., Executive Director of WSO told me face-to-face in just a month later in February 1996 that they would renew the three-year trial as often as needed until they established a permanent policy.  I lost track of how many times it was renewed, but once established and have become the norm, it was easily adopted as permanent policy a dozen or so years later.  It wasn't until 25 years later, and under an entirely new regime, along with a year of COVID closures, that the WSC changed course and allowed the electronic meetings to become groups.  

DOMINANCE and ONE GLOBAL ELECTRONIC AREA. Part 1

Let's start by understanding that the WORLD Service Office and the WORLD Service Conference are NOT 	and do NOT REPRESENT THE WORLD.  The Al‑Anon Family Group Headquarters, Inc. and Al‑Anon/Alateen World Service Office, Virginia Beach, VA represent the United States and Canada.  The ONLY groups that have ever been allowed to elect GRs which then elect Delegates to the WSC are in the USA and Canada.  The only GRs that can eventually become members of the Board of Directors are GRs from the USA and Canada.  Everyone else in the world may become a member of a GSO. . . page 35 of the Service Manual states:
     " Anyone wanting to start an Alateen meeting outside of the World Service Conference Structure is directed by the WSO to that country’s national service committee or General Service Office (GSO) if one exists."  Representatives of GSO from other nations occasionally attend the WSC, however they have no vote.

There are about 78 Areas in the USA & Canada, each of which elects a Delegate to the WSC.  Now, the WSO has created ONE SINGLE AREA to represent EVERY electronic group throughout the world.  Just one.  The 2020 World Service Conference Summary noted that there were 215 English-speaking electronic meetings and a total of 296 electronic meetings worldwide.  By December 2021, WSO informed the CMA Connect Forum that there were over 700 electronic groups registered.  Today, there are 1,031 English-speaking and 399 non-English speaking groups for a total of 1,430 electronic groups.  All piled into one single multi-cultural Area speaking well over a dozen languages.  

The bottom line is there are 68 Delegates from the USA & Canada to the World Service Conference, AND WSO STAFF with voice and vote, for a total of 89 voting members of the WSC - 23.6% of the vote at the WSC are WSO staff.  Please, do not underestimate the influence that WSO has on the group conscience of the WSC.

Just one of those votes represents the entire planet's electronic meetings, regardless of language, culture, or how they gather and meet.  
As I mentioned earlier, the non-English speaking groups had envisioned multiple Areas so that they would be able to communicate readily with those that shared their native language, and as a result have a voice and vote in the Al-Anon service structure.  By creating a single electronic Area, the GEA, the voice of the electronic groups is minimal.  

DOMINANCE WITHIN THE GEA.  Part 2.

Dominance tends to come from two directions.  
*  One is from individuals that are ambitious and strive to be in charge and enjoy the prestige of the top position.  Al-Anon is not immune to those ambitious members.   
*  The second comes from structures that facilitate dominance by a few sub-groups of the organizations.  I just illustrated how the structure of the World Service Conference allows WSO to dominate the WSC.  

The GEA is clearly dominated by two very large sub-groups: English-speaking & Zoom groups.  Two additional sub-groups are second in line to dominate:  those in the UTC -5 (EST) & UTC -8 (PST).  IF we wish to reduce systemic dominance as much as possible, it is important that we recognize this and organize our structure to minimize dominance by any faction within our fellowship.  

Unfortunately, the GEA Task Force recommendation does the opposite.  If we apply the recommendation as described, the result will be a glut of districts, the vast majority dominated by English-speaking Zoom groups comprised of members primarily from the USA coastal states.  The idea that numerous small districts with forced integration of minority representation of other platforms and such will result in unity is a dream.  The logical result of such a structure is simple - the minority members will become disenchanted and their voice and problems are not shared by the majority, the majority vote will prevail, the minority will be disenfranchised and leave the district.  

Instead, if the districts are delineated by their differences, then those differences will have a voice and vote in the larger fellowship, aka the GEA.  

While this may seem haywire, the solution is to not merely allow districts to vary in size, but to encourage that groups with a high degree of commonality belong to the same district.  For example, English-speaking Zoom groups based out of Southern California would belong to the same District, much like their f2f counterparts now belong to the same Area.  Similarly, European English-speaking Zoom groups could belong to the same District.  Lastly, the non-English-speaking/non-Spanish-speaking Zoom groups could belong to a single district using Zoom's language interpretation feature (currently 16 languages).  And so on, however, I'd again suggest delineating groups by technology vs. platform brand.  

DISTRICT SIZE

I'll start with the concept that setting arbitrary parameters for decision making is very rarely, if ever, a good idea.  Instead, it is indicative of an unwillingness to make a rational decision based on facts and issues.  

I re-read the Thought Force recommendations on this issue and strongly disagree with much of it.  What I read was DRs - yes, DRs - saying that small districts were an advantage, even to the ridiculous example of a district with only 2 groups.  OK, small districts may be an advantage for the DR who is trying to herd cats, but not for the GR that needs ES&H from a larger experience pool.  It is important to remember that we do not limit group size, AND it is a fact that the smaller the group, the more difficult it is to flesh out service positions.  The same applies to districts. 

And we need to remember that the primary purpose of a district is to support the groups.  If districts are artificially limited in size, they are also artificially limited in their ability to support their groups.  

KBDM

From what I've read and heard the GEA Districting Task Force talked about using the KBDM process.  I respectfully disagree.  As I understand the KBDM process, the organization discusses an issue and the issues sub-issues thoroughly.  When it appears that there is a consensus on a sub-issue, that consensus is noted, and the discussion moves on to other sub-issues.  ONLY after a consensus has been reached on every sub-issue is the overall consensus assembled as something to be voted on.  Like many others, I came out of the Task Force presentation a bit confused on what the overall plan was.  

I do not believe that the Task Force recommendation is sufficiently fleshed out for the GRs to vote on the package.  

I attended another electronic meeting last night. After the recovery meeting, the GR posted the Thought Force recommendations.  What got my attention was her comment that the GRs would be faced with a take it or leave it package.  IMHO, that's basically blackmailing the GRs into accepting the Task Force recommendation granting the GEA full authority to permanently place groups into districts as they wish - or the GRs are faced with the pain and suffering of the entire districting issue going back to square one.  I don't know if this is fact, however if it is, then this is very bad news.  

    How does that jive with KBDM?  Not one iota.  

Love and SERENITY,
Steve


____________________________
To Unsubscribe, go to: http://www.asp-afg.org/mailman/listinfo/asp
The ASP web site with all kinds of info for ASP members is http://asp-afg.org/members/
For assistance with other ASP issues, contact Lynne, the List Administrator of ASP, at lynne at asp-afg.org